If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Not exactly what I'm thinking. What I mean is that when being deployed, cavalry gain the quality of being a tank, but only during deployment. So Tank riders can use its ability with cavalry, for it being during deployment, but ATs can't target cavalry, for this not being anymore during deployment.

I don't believe they gain any tank-qualities just on account of their being deployed in place of a tank. They should not get any tank qualities beyond being able to occupy that space in a doctrine's attack list, which, in itself, is not a tank quality but a doctrine requirement.

Whether it's overpowering or not is not really the issue. This issue is we have an infantry card being able to accompany another infantry card, when in reality it should only be able to accompany a tank card on attack, and as we saw, this includes being able to accompany the same infantry unit in infantry-only attacks.

I'm simply suggesting we enforce the letter and spirit of the cards involved here.

Yes I agree with Radiohead here - this is a bug because we see a contradiction here.

When a cavalry attacks as an "infantry card" in an infantry only doctrine, tank riders should NOT be able to accompany it because by definition the cavalry is not using it's "special ability" to act as a tank in a doctrine which requires a tank.

This phenomenon of the tank riders being able to "ride" the cavalry into combat should (if at all imho) at least only be able to be done when the cavalry is intentionally "acting" as a tank in a doctrine which requires a tank.

The question comes now up: As what is the cavalry attacking?? As infantry or as a tank? Somehow it's using both at the same time. A subterfuge dual-use unit. It has the advantages of attack function of a dual-use unit, but not the disadvantages of being targeted as a dual-use unit. Quite good if you ask me. Is this the intention of cavalry? I hardly think so. Because if so cavalry is not so bad - quite good actually; and I want the other factions to have it as well!!!

You know what this results in? Cavalry is LESS vulnerable in attack than Panzergrenadiers and Armoured Infantry. These are after all only riding in armoured vehicles so it's logical that they should be more vulnerable than infantry riding on horses right?..... :-/

But when attacking as infantry, you cannot use tank riders with it, at least i think Radiohed said that.

The thing is, read the text of cavalry. It says it "can be deployed as tank when attacking". I understand this: when being deployed, and only while being deployed, it can count as a tank (that's why you can attack with 3 cavalries on Deep Operation and none can be target of ATs). If so, you can use tank riders with it.

About the question on how it's being used on attack, as tank or infantry, i think that's no problem because: 1) by the doctrine you can catch how it's being deployed and 2) The only possibility for this question is if attacking with more cavalries and until now i think there's nothing that requires you to know which one is the tank and which one is not.

Yes I agree with Radiohead here - this is a bug because we see a contradiction here.

When a cavalry attacks as an "infantry card" in an infantry only doctrine, tank riders should NOT be able to accompany it because by definition the cavalry is not using it's "special ability" to act as a tank in a doctrine which requires a tank.

This phenomenon of the tank riders being able to "ride" the cavalry into combat should (if at all imho) at least only be able to be done when the cavalry is intentionally "acting" as a tank in a doctrine which requires a tank.

The question comes now up: As what is the cavalry attacking?? As infantry or as a tank? Somehow it's using both at the same time. A subterfuge dual-use unit. It has the advantages of attack function of a dual-use unit, but not the disadvantages of being targeted as a dual-use unit. Quite good if you ask me. Is this the intention of cavalry? I hardly think so. Because if so cavalry is not so bad - quite good actually; and I want the other factions to have it as well!!!

You know what this results in? Cavalry is LESS vulnerable in attack than Panzergrenadiers and Armoured Infantry. These are after all only riding in armoured vehicles so it's logical that they should be more vulnerable than infantry riding on horses right?..... :-/

Romdanzer

Well said.

Although the vulnerability to me is not a contradiction because they are esspentially infantry, but the point is the cavalry merely "acting" like a tank in deployment.

Bottom line: Cavalry can take a tank's spot on attack, end of story. That is all the card entails it to do, it does not entail it to get other advantages and disadvantages of armoured units, and it certainly shouldn't confer the ability to have another unit "ride" it into an attack.

The intentions of the card is clear, that it is not a tank, and never intended to be a tank, merely that it replaces a tank on attack if the doctrine requires one. Therefore it offers that added flexibility of being able to use a doctrine you othrewise wouldn't, but should not work with Tank Riders.

Well - no - that has been proved - that's the whole point. You CAN use tank riders with cavalry when cavalry is attacking as inf - see the screenshot in this thread above!! He is using "Infantry Attack" and is attacking with 2 normal infantry, 1 Cavalry and 1 Tank rider - 4 cards while only using "infantry attack" where you can only attack with 3 inf cards!!

This should be considered a bug since the cavalry is definately NOT using it's ability to attack as a tank.

As to the point of vulnerability - that is a point. Because this game does not really simulate armour in any fashion - units with two signs on the card are more vulnerable than units with only one. For example Panzergrenadiers and Armoured inf are WORSE than units with only one sign as they can be pinned, wounded, killed by all cards which can only harm one or the other. For example they can be killed outright by tanks which have Tank Kill / DMG option and at the same time be pinned by HMG's. And this ALTHOUGH they are supposed to be riding in armoured vehicles???... go figure...

As I said the underlying issue in my oppinion is that there is no real mechanism for armour is this game. Only indirect through damage types. I for one would like to see much more use of damage types being used for a lot of cards. Thus giving armoured cards more power. At the moment this is a major issue why infantry and planes are so strong in this game and dominate the doctrines which are being used. Tanks are simply too anemic in their protection against damage and expensive in their cost to be really effective or a viable doctrine option in the top spots. There nice to have. But not more.

In the three major doctrines used in game (Strat Bomb, Inf Probe, Masti), does armour play any significant role ... at all?....NO....if at all then only as dual-use units.

My bad, i thought Radiohead said the opposite. Well, regarding to this (tank riders with cavalry when using it as infantry) I'd say it's really a bug. But I think you should be able to use tank riders with it if it's being deployed as a tank.

But about panzer and armoured being worse than normal infantries, those are probably the best infantries of the game (not considering those rares as Partisans, SS-Panzer and Forward Observer or allied Observation Post)

I don't mean panzer-gren and armoured in respect to normal infantries - I was talking about in reference to cavalry.

But in general terms I also am refering to the fact that tanks / armour could use a little boost. It's not bad at the moment. It's ok, but well, not grand. But I'm just wondering why tanks and a tank doctrine play essentially no significant role with the top doctrines being used (Strat Bomb, Inf Probe, Masti). Deep operation, Massive Attack and Blitzkrieg while ok are hard to use and risky in comparison.

Normally I would imagine a WW2 based card game the atmosphere to be exactly the other way around - Deep operation, Massive Attack and Blitzkrieg to be the top ones used and Strat Bomb, Inf Probe, Masti to be ok, hard to use and risky in comparison.

its not so much that tanks are weaker in general, but the small edge they give compared to the draw problem is the reason why they cant stand up against the standart doctrines.

even though there are some supports that serve much better for a cheap battlephase kill then tanks, the edge for tanks would be to combine a tank with such a cheap support to have a much stronger attack then a inf probe can field for example.
But the problem is more that u need primarly inf and supports for the most defenses, and thats why inf probe is so much more secure to play.
Even though im not a great player and did many mistakes usually, most tourney matches i played i lost either to SB (i hate it as blitz palyer^^) or simply cuz i keept getting bad draws like only tanks, air and factorys while i was running out of infantry with a deck that does have around 30-35% inf already.

The advantage of tanks is heavy armor but in general they are slow and, the worst thing, that Narfi pointed, usually you are not defending with them. Anyway I expect their usefulness to grow as people start using meeting engagement.

But about those 2 tanks you mentioned, they are among the best cards of the game (IMO, ofc), because:
-Panzergrenadier: cost 3, can kill on close combat and hit on battle phase. You will see a lot of battle strikes on infantry probe decks, which, usually, will strike first than your infantries when you are defending against it. Don't forget inf probe is extremely fast.
-Armoured Infantry: No other card in the game cost 2 and have a close combat kill. This can make an allied deck a lot faster.

To me, cavalry is already given a big advantage to a normal 2-cost unit, because it will allow a doctrine like No Quarters, Meeting Engagement, and Massive Attack to attack without having actual armoured units on the board.

Additionally they give you the flexibility of being infantry by being able to defend.

These advantages alone should be enough to make Cavalry a valuable card in decks that use tanks, let alone any compatibility with Tank Riders.

I suppose it is up to the developers to decide whether cavalry, on deployment is at the same time equally a tank and infantry...

Or whether it is being deployed only in place of a tank for doctrine requirements, and does not gain recognition as a tank for any other purposes (as I feel the spirit of the card indicates).

Anyway I expect their usefulness to grow as people start using meeting engagement.

Why would people start using Meeting engagement? The only difference compared to combined arms is that the defender has to use tanks instead of inf as a reserve? Actually, normally this would should mean the defender should be STRONGER!! Why would people start to use a doctrine which makes the defender stronger????

I know why - because no one uses tanks right? Therefore in the current situation it makes sense - YOU FORCE tanks upon the defender. The weaker choice for him since tanks are not in his deck. And this statement really shows whats wrong with this game when forcing tanks upon the defender is BETTER for the attacker.

I'm sorry but this state of affairs is so totally out of whack with reality it's crazy....

I think people usually don't use many tanks because infantry probe is way better than other doctrines. As you will probably fight one of those, using meeting engagement seems a good choice, not because they will have to use a tank, but because they will not be able to use infantry. If they happen to use a tank on defense, it will probably be a stronger defense than using infantry.
It's not that tanks are bad, it's their doctrines that are not so good.

We have plenty of tank doctrines at the moment. Combined arms, Blitzkrieg, Massive Attack, Deep operation, No quarters (an upgraded combined arms), Kesselschlacht. And yet not a single one of these is under the top three....why?

It's not the doctrines... it's because tanks are just overall too weak. End of Story. And if you insist it's the doctrines then make a tank doctrine suggestion which would be good in your oppinion. You can't, because again... tanks are just overall too weak.

its not the tanks in itself that are weak. an attack with tank+support+inf should in most cases be more lethal then inf+inf+support.
BUT the problem is what is required for defense, and thats where and why tanks are weak. Tanks cannot defend vs most foctrines, and while ur using tanks in a deck (and possible air) ur much more vulnerable to bad draws when u would need infantry to block the next VP doctrine.

That's a huge step forward, possibly unbalanced. It wasn't yet tested meeting engagement and NQ on tournaments. Maybe they will get on the top of the list. The thing is that those 3 mentioned doctrines (maski, inf probe and SB) proved themselves already. They got 18 or so tournaments on their back.

NORMALLY Meeting engagement should be inferior to Combined arms. You are giving the defender the ability to use tanks in defence. That should be a disadvantage for the attacker not an advantage.

and No Quarters is just really Combined arms with an additional special twist which has nothing to do with tanks per se + it's only for 1 faction. I hardly think this will make tanks more used across the board in the entire game.

The point of what?
I think you are not getting it. The advantage of meeting engagement is not the defender being able to use a tank on defense but it not being able to use that last spot with infantry. This card looks really like to counter-balance infantry probes.
And NQ plays really different from combined arms, also having everything to do with tanks (and artillery phase hits). You have a lot more battle hits from cheap tanks than anything else (besides airplanes i think)